Instructions: Please use this form as an organizer for writing your portion of your group position paper. You will be writing the third part of the paper. You should clearly and thoroughly document the results of your interviews regarding the final solution that your group has decided on to solve the problem that you are addressing. You may use your own research and the research from other members of your group to address any objections or concerns that were raised by those interviewed. Be sure to follow the MLA citation format that you used when completing your JRP. Your portion of the paper should be a minimum of one page in length.
Our interviewees had very few objections, which speaks to the future overall successfulness of this bill. However, we did observe a few concerns during our interview. For instance, Ken Nichol emphasized that smokers also have rights that need to be taken into account. However, the sponsors of this legislation feel that it will make it possible to acknowledge and honor these rights while also protecting the rights and health of those who have chosen not to smoke. Piotr Bartyzel made the argument that when smoking is allowed in workplaces, it creates a non-level playing field between smokers and nonsmokers. In addition, permitting smoking in workplaces allows for a decrease in productivity and focus. Janet Cather was concerned that while the state of Illinois has successfully passed a ban on smoking in all public buildings, some states have a higher percentage of smokers than Illinois or other states in which a smoking ban has been passed efficiently. For this reason, Ms. Cather feels that there may be some sort of a controversy regarding this national legislation. The sponsors of this bill feel that this is a valid concern. However, we think that all bills face some sort of opposition, and that this bill would generally improve the quality of life for most. Many interviewees also brought up the point that this law may be difficult for smokers to become accustomed to. None of the four bill sponsors are smokers, but we do sympathize with those who feel they may be affected negatively by this bill. However, much of our research has yielded positive results in the long run of these various bans. We as legislators and as citizens believe that the nation is a changing one, and that both the laws and the constituents must adapt to this change. Many years have passed since researchers have discovered the negative effects of smoking, and it is time the nation took a step towards catching up. Lorry Fosco was concerned that many at her place of business are not fond of having to take breaks and go outside in the sometimes unpleasant weather to smoke. We feel that while these smokers do have rights, the initial choice was made consciously and while the situation is not ideal, sometimes consequences cannot be avoided. The goal of this legislation is not to punish smokers, but instead to prevent nonsmokers from suffering the consequences of choices they did not make. We believe that this can be done while preserving the rights and the integrity of smokers and nonsmokers. Overall, the concerns of our interviewees were minimal. We feel that this is a good sign, and that America is ready for a bill to serve the rights and health concerns of all citizens, whether they choose to smoke or not.
Name: Danielle Keller
Instructions: Please use this form as an organizer for writing your portion of your group position paper. You will be writing the third part of the paper. You should clearly and thoroughly document the results of your interviews regarding the final solution that your group has decided on to solve the problem that you are addressing. You may use your own research and the research from other members of your group to address any objections or concerns that were raised by those interviewed. Be sure to follow the MLA citation format that you used when completing your JRP. Your portion of the paper should be a minimum of one page in length.
Our interviewees had very few objections, which speaks to the future overall successfulness of this bill. However, we did observe a few concerns during our interview. For instance, Ken Nichol emphasized that smokers also have rights that need to be taken into account. However, the sponsors of this legislation feel that it will make it possible to acknowledge and honor these rights while also protecting the rights and health of those who have chosen not to smoke. Piotr Bartyzel made the argument that when smoking is allowed in workplaces, it creates a non-level playing field between smokers and nonsmokers. In addition, permitting smoking in workplaces allows for a decrease in productivity and focus. Janet Cather was concerned that while the state of Illinois has successfully passed a ban on smoking in all public buildings, some states have a higher percentage of smokers than Illinois or other states in which a smoking ban has been passed efficiently. For this reason, Ms. Cather feels that there may be some sort of a controversy regarding this national legislation. The sponsors of this bill feel that this is a valid concern. However, we think that all bills face some sort of opposition, and that this bill would generally improve the quality of life for most. Many interviewees also brought up the point that this law may be difficult for smokers to become accustomed to. None of the four bill sponsors are smokers, but we do sympathize with those who feel they may be affected negatively by this bill. However, much of our research has yielded positive results in the long run of these various bans. We as legislators and as citizens believe that the nation is a changing one, and that both the laws and the constituents must adapt to this change. Many years have passed since researchers have discovered the negative effects of smoking, and it is time the nation took a step towards catching up. Lorry Fosco was concerned that many at her place of business are not fond of having to take breaks and go outside in the sometimes unpleasant weather to smoke. We feel that while these smokers do have rights, the initial choice was made consciously and while the situation is not ideal, sometimes consequences cannot be avoided. The goal of this legislation is not to punish smokers, but instead to prevent nonsmokers from suffering the consequences of choices they did not make. We believe that this can be done while preserving the rights and the integrity of smokers and nonsmokers. Overall, the concerns of our interviewees were minimal. We feel that this is a good sign, and that America is ready for a bill to serve the rights and health concerns of all citizens, whether they choose to smoke or not.